From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Viruses (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Delete "Causes" section[edit]

Can we get rid of the "Causes" section? It's redundant since transmission by the Aedes mosquito vector is described quite thoroughly under the "Epidemiology" section. The information on the origin of the name could be moved to the intro paragraph at the top of the article. Xenobiologista (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

"I was doing voluntary work near Tenkassi,TamilNadu, India in June/July of this year and was affected by Chikungunya. I was struck suddenly by a high fever, headache and aching joints but it only lasted for about 48 hrs. I took lots of Citracidal (concentrated grapefruit seed extract) with water, this can be purchased in health food shops globally. I strongly believe this helped as my syptoms were not as servere as in others in the village and did not come back. I advice anybody going to the region to take this with them. Paracetemol also helped reduce the fever. Prevention to bites is the best form of defence. I wish to urge anyone planning a trip to an affected area to help in any form of social work not let this virus cause them to cancel their trip. local people are having to deal with this on-going and largely un-reported virus on a daily basis and need help and support. Typicaly they will not be getting this from their government." Jago Neal. 5.10.06 08:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is the wrong place to write about your personal story. Save it for your blog or personal website. The Wikipedia talk page guidelines say:

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Xenobiologista (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

'Insisting on the terms "relatively rare" and on the section on prevention which only has the statement "neem" does not improve the article. Look, just the presence of the neem tree does not prevent mosquito-borne diseases, ok? An appropriate prevention section would talk about quarantine and the need for mosquito netting and campaigns against mosquito breeding and so on. As it was written, the text (that I removed) does not stand on it's own - an appropriate section needs more fleshing out and may well include the use of neem. Alex.tan 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)'

Mosquito repellent acronyms[edit]

What the heck is NNDB, "insect repellent containing NNDB, DEET"?? In this context, it's surely not the "Notable Names Database" [1].... 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

N,N-diethyl-3-methylbenzamide (NNDB) and N,N-dimethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) are the same thing. I've fixed the ambiguity by putting DEET first and then "also known as..." in parentheses. I think the DEET acronym is kind of stupid, personally. Also, NNDB follows the IUPAC (standardized) chemical name whereas DEET follows a nonstandard naming system.
Americans call it DEET. I don't know if it's different outside the USA but if the NNDB acronym is more common globally, somebody can go ahead and change it to that. Xenobiologista (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed advertising[edit]

I removed a piece of blatant advertising by User:Bajaj, whose only contributions seem to be repeatedly shilling a product called "ArmyWear" on Wikipedia. Kolbasz 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Huge Outbreak In Kerala[Pathanamthitta ,Kottayam,Allapuzha] 2007 may[edit]

Many r suffering with it..some have different symptoms.The old are affected early.Homeopathic is much effective than others with seen experience.But itz out of control each day thousants are infected and many are dyeing


This was previously posted on the articles page...--Steven Fruitsmaak 18:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC) " Vague method of PREVENTING chickugunya fever. I am a doctor working in Gadag in the state of karnataka India. I felt like sharing this funny method of preventing chikungunya. Here people are tying camphor in a piece of cloth and this is put like a garland around the neck of people of all ages especially kids. the logic is that camphor repels mosquitoes and thus by preventing mosquitoe bites one can prevent the chikungunya fever. But if at all there is any scientific logic in this method I would be very much interested to know but I really doubt. The disease is so widespread that these areas may feel a acute shortage of camphor in the market!!!!!?? Dr. Y.M.Kabadi MD. DNB(Obstetrics and Gynaecology) "


I'm from Hyderabad, India. There is a severe outbreak of Chikungunia in our city and almost every household is affected. It is found that homeopathic medicine Eupatorium Perf in 200c is helpful in preventing this viral infection. After using this preventive remedy, even if someone gets the fever it is likely to be less severe. - Shiv Asthana, Rxhomeo, Inc [2] Comment. Im a medical doctor working in Goverment Services, the news published in news papers and in visual medias are not correct and its biased. The alternative medicines unfortunatly have no secintific basis. When you say something on the treatment of a particular disease, should not be based up on your "single" personal experiances.

Outbreak in Maharashtra[edit]

I have just recived news from my parents saying that there is a severe outbreak of this disease in their place (Amravati), also a friend of mine has recently been infected and she stays in Jalgaon. Are any other areas reporting fresh outbreaks?08:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)~Neha


I just added 5 more redirects to this page - there are multiple spellings out there, and it was very hard to find this article, even through google. There were already 11 redirects here, which shows how irregular the spelling is! There was also one orphaned article - chikun guniya - which I merged into this one. If anyone comes across any other alternate spellings, please redirect them here. Bruxism 21:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up guy[edit]

Hey, I've been cleaning up the article. I will continue my clean up tomorrow. If anyone is interested please improve the layout of the Chikungunya Outbreak of 2004-Present article. Lestat 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vector and Treatment[edit]

It looks like this page has been revised in a major way that significantly reduced the quality of the content. 1) CHIKV has always been able to be transmitted by mosquitos other than A. aegypti. A. albopictus is a more efficient vector. 2) The article now seems to support the same type of entrepreneurs who recommend yoga and/or herbs to "cure" CHIKV infections. 3) Chloroquine has extremely dangerous side effects. The French government did not "recommend" it; it merely stated it appears to be somewhat effective against arthralgia. There are only two studies on chloroquine's off-label use for CHIKV, a South African and an Italian. The study by Savarino et al. did not add "credence" to a claim; there had already been a study. 4) arthralgia and arthritis are not the same. 5) "conjunctival infection" is called conjunctivitis. 6) Serological tests are available in most countries!!!

Homeopathic Alternatives[edit]

Hello, Malangali, I see that you have entirely lopped of my section on Effective Homeopathic Alternatives. May I ask, haven't you heard of homeopathy before. In it not practiced in your part of the world? If not, be informed that homeopathy is a viable alternative to 'allopathic' alternatives. Its not chimpanzees paw boiled in cow urine kind of therapy. Its a system of medicine that was founded in Germany, found its feet in the United States and practiced as we speak in the UK. So, get familiar with it. Besides, Chikungunya is no longer an African disease. It hit India last year and badly too. I have personal experience of the epidemic. And, what I have put done there, while in may not be poetic in its meter, its valuable stuff. I would like you permission to put it back there. Please revert back to me with your reasonable objections. And, ah yes, I do not want to hear your warped interpretation of NPOV. Removing it, on the contrary reflects a biased POV. I hate to break it to you, but we are moving back. That's right. The whole world is desperately seeking alternative therapies. Homeopath 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Homeopath,
Please become familiar with the purpose and style of Wikipedia articles. The edits you have made to the Chikungunya article are inappropriate in the form that you have submitted them. Please read articles about NPOV (no point of view), proper sources, and making sure that the content of each article is relevant to THAT article.
There is a place to note that certain homeopathic approaches to Chikungunya treatment are being considered as an alternative to biomedicine. However, that is a ONE SENTENCE addition to the article, not a several paragraph ramble about homeopathy in general. Malangali 11:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Malangali, Homeopathy is a viable form of medicine practiced all over the world. And, in the case of chikungunya, it does offer a viable alternative. Allopaths on the other hand, have no cure. But forget all that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Why should the encyclopedia not contain an alternative ideology? Besides, Wikipedia is not the allopath’s private medical journal. And, you are not their sales representative. Homeopath 16:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no issue with homeopathy versus biomedicine. The issue is with a good encyclopedic article versus an article that veers off topic and away from solid research. If you want to include reference to homeopathic approaches to treatment of chikungunya, sourced with reputable studies, go ahead and do it in a sentence or two - I certainly will not stand in your way.
The insistence on reputable studies, by the way, does not make one an apologist for the biomedical establishment. The issue of whether to use chemical treatments devised in a sterile lab, etc (biomedicine, more or less) is completely different from the issue of scientific method, in which a treatment is subject to testing against a placebo or other alternatives and the results are compared according to a clear set of criteria and can be replicated. Generally speaking, studies that adhere to the scientific method can survive the process of peer review, which means that others knowledgeable in the field inspect the study for accuracy and potential flaws in reasoning or methodology. You can have a perfectly scientific study of a homeopathic treatment, which would serve as an excellent source for an article in Wikipedia. The reason I have reverted your submission is because you have failed to provide a succinct synopsis of scientific (not synonymous with allopathic) research that would be relevant to the topic. Malangali 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I can see where you are going with ‘peer-rear-viewing,’ ‘placebo,’ ‘scientific methodology,’ nonsense. It’s really is a joke. This indeed is the rug you pull out to trip a blissful alternative thinker!

Well, top of the mind response: Hmm, let me see now, allopathy having presumably jumped thought this hoop, still hasn’t been able to give us a cure for chikungunya, right? So, all the more reason to chuck it!

Considered response: and I hope you have the intellectual integrity to appreciate it. The testing methodology that you have outlined is irrelevant because we are dealing with a system of medicine that is inconceivable in its action, and therefore outside the purview of modern science and its methodology. I would have used the word ‘mystical’ here, but I don’t want to spook you.

But guess what M, the human body mends itself in a mystical manner. Indeed, it too is a process that is very much outside the purview of modern science. Sure, you may have your theories, but no one really knows how the body mends itself. That’s why the whole think is an experimental science. You apply a bit of chemical, poke it with a lance, prod it with electricity, and lo and behold, it begins to work! And that’s exactly how homeopaths too decide on the efficacy of its medicine. So, get off your high horse.

But, you may still ask, why is it that homeopathy miserably fails in a placebo test, and is so notorious when it comes to repeatability? The answer to that is: allopathy is gross science. You overwhelm the body with huge quantities of chemicals, and sure you get repeatable results. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is a subtle science that needs the gentle hands of a homeopath to coax or effect a cure. To make up for this deficiency, it offers hugely cost effective treatment and one that has no-side effects. And that's something a lot of people are increasingly seeking.

I am not a homeopath and have nothing to gain by pushing homeopathy. All I see is an alternative, Old World science that is sustainable and subtle in its approach. Oh, how I love such things! I cannot stand to see some crass, insensitive individual willingly trample upon it a misguided show of solidarity with modern-day or big business ideologies. Why do you do it, man? Is somebody paying you to toe their line? Indeed, such individuals really have no business on the Wikipedia, which as far as I see, is alternative thinking at its best.Homeopath 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Homeopath, I have very patiently explained to you why the incoherent several paragraphs you want inserted in the Chikungunya article were not up to the standards necessary for inclusion in a 3 paragraph summary of treatments in an encyclopedia article, and I have made suggestions to you about how you can revise your submission in such a way that it would be appropriate. You have responded with wildly off-base personal attacks that violate one of the basic principles of Wikipedia, assume good faith. I'm done talking with you now. Bye bye! Malangali 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This entire article is "guarded" by narrow-minded and biased "editors". These people do not even bother to read the references and links given. The reason given is that the passage is not "written properly". So bloody damn write it properly I dont see any POV in this passage which I copied. It just states the treatment. I even have a given a medindia (which is an allopathic biased news site) link, These people are forced to publish this news because I am from Karnataka(India) itself and there is a huge effort by the govt. and NGO who have conducted camps and are distributing homeopathic medicines in lakhs. Isnt this newsource enough evidence that homeopathy treatment is a "recognized" treatment for this disease.

There is scientific evidence but nobody has published the papers on the internet, so in that case I think medindia link that is reporting such a news should be taken as confirmation of homeopathy treatment being succesfully used for this disease. I dont believe that I actually came here to get more info on Homeopathy treatment of Chikungunya. Yes I actually came here to get more info as tommorrow I am going with my friend to get some Preventable homeopathy treatment for myself. I thought let me check the net first as I have never taken homeopathy treatment in my life(since I was a kid as my parents were very smart and gave me homeopathy treatment for minor coughs and colds rather than antibiotics). I always use tabs and open multiple links and I found a lot more links on how effective homeopathy treatment was and I though I should contribute the wiki as this treatment may be known only India. Little did I know that these Wiki "guardians" are deleting any forms of alternative treatment. My friend who was a victim was suffering throughout the disease and for two months until he took homeopathy treatment(btw he is a pharmaceutical dealer who deals in allopathic medicine). After experiencing it first hand he is conducting camps in his village and has saved many people. You people who are deleting this very effective treatment should be ashamed of yourselves. You can atleast edit it yourselves and see that it is NPOV. Or atleast keep it there with a warning like so many other wiki articles. Shame on you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


This article contains accepted medically descriptive terms for the specific signs and symptoms of an identifiable disease. They are cross-referenced where applicable. This article describes a process of illness: treatments, epidemiology, contagion. A layperson with sufficient interest and grasp of English should have no problems understanding the article. POV-pushers, purveyors of quack nostrums, proponents of dumbing-down and disappointed seekers of gruesome pictures and descriptions may have problems with this article entirely. That is no reason to tag it, especially seeing as not one arguement claiming such as been posted on this talk page. Unless there is a indeed a debate on this issue, the tags should go and I'll be monitoring this page accordingly. Please reply here if you agree ir feel otherwise! Plutonium27 (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


it should be a standard feature of disease related articles, this one included, to list what mortality statistics are available. if the disease causes no significant rate of mortality, then say so.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Can someone note in the article how do we pronounce this disease? --Sav_vas (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Biowarfare/Reference 29 problem[edit]

The link to the Center for Non-proliferation in reference 29 doesn't work when I click it through my browser. It currently points to which is identical to what I get when I Google the title of the reference but it doesn't work straight from Wiki. I think I'll go through the document myself and expand the BW section using the CNPO article's references as base over the next week or so if there's no other interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed this, for now. Although CNS is moving domains. I couldn't find the same document on the new domain. --MTHarden (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Indian Traditional medicine[edit]

Have removed this text again [3]. The source [4] is not really reliable as it contradicts more reliable sources such as this 2013 review [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Since that review doesn't seem (at a quick glance) to say anything at all about traditional Indian medicine, I don't really understand how it can "contradict" any statement at all about what is, or isn't, done in traditional Indian medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The source provided is well below the Wikipedia medical article reliable sources standard in my opinion. a) it is a brief review of the situation in India, a collection of various trials with homeopathic remedies b) there is no consensus given (the conclusion is a paragraph) c) all of the trials are poorly detailed d) most do not appear to meet basic objectivity standards for publication based on the information given (e.g. lack of randomization, lack of standardized outcome assessment, none are placebo controlled, several have alternate treatments but no evidence this is a standard that might substitute for a control group, ....) e) references provided cite the Wikipedia article itself and the remainder are greater than 20 years old (many being from the 1960's and 1970's) f) there are few references given the size of the document. In summary, it is not a document from which conclusion can be drawn based on Wikipedia standards. Ian Furst (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The review states that their is no effective treatment. This user is trying to use this source to claim there is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The removed text begins, "Though there is no satisfactory treatment regimen available, in India, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine like Linga Chenduram, Nilavembu Kudineer are used..." (emphasis added). This sounds to me like a descriptive statement of fact, rather than a claim that they work, and it looks like a pretty direct claim that there is no effective traditional treatment (isn't that what "there is no satisfactory treatment" means to you?). It then goes on to say that they think anti-inflammatories are helpful supportive care, which sounds an awful lot like the claims made about NSAIDs in the ==Treatment== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You left out the bit Especially Nilavembu Kudineer ... as a preventive measure for all ages. That is a big claim which would require an excellent source. This is not it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the claim that it is "effective" as a preventive statement requires a better source. But I do not see why the statement of the plain fact that people do actually use it needs to be removed. The claims of efficacy could have been removed without removing the statement that there is no satisfactory treatment and that people use these (apparently unsatisfactory) treatments anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
People use all sort of stuff. If we had a ref that states how frequently this is used in India we could put it in the society and culture section, but not in the treatment section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There first reference is to Wikipedia. This disqualifies it as a reliable source for disease related content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The content whatever i added is directly taken from the pdf link. If you dont find the word "Especially", you could have removed only the word. Sathishmls (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Superficially, the source looks professional and authoritative. However its evidence, such as it is, is only case series. There is no attempt to consider a control group. As such, it is of low quality and should not be used, except perhaps to say that ayurvedic/homoeopathic medicine is used—without any comment on efficacy. I have my suspicions as to why the authors have taken this approach, but I shall not state them here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
beyond that, they provide the case series in the shell of a review - however all the data (I believe) is previously unpublished. This pushes it well into the primary resource category rather than review. Ian Furst (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that treating it like a primary source would be reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It is at most a source for a description of ayurvedic practices, and is totally unreliable for any assertion about the value or safety of those practices. Deliberate use of Mercury sulfide as a drug? Really? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First i would like to tell you all that the content i added is only to mention the fact that how in India, government is trying to manage chikungunya using traditional medicine which is exactly given in the pdf link. Sathishmls (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I have added the modified content. Please do not blank the section. Sathishmls (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Most appear to see this as a primary source. It should thus probably not be used at all. I have moved it to the society and culture section as a compromise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The Technical Report [6] is published directly from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The treatment is carried out by Central Government Institutions and Government hospitals all over India. I wanted to add this information which is happening Nation-wide. I dont understand why are you blocking this content. Sathishmls (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Till now you were saying this is not a reliable source. Now you have accepted because you know that you cannot block a nation-wide fact. Now you are trying to put the content to some place in the article to make it negligible and unrelated. Please do not do this. Sathishmls (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very poor quality source. It is not good enough to document any treatment effect. I have compromised with it being used to state that these are used in the "society and culture" section.[7] Have moved it again as what you are trying to add is definately undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I would call this a medical claim "are used to combat pyrexial and post-pyrexial states of Chikungunya" and thus would require a proper medical ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing added on my own. I have added the same lines given in the document prepared by the Chief Doctors and Directors of India. In the same document, the statistics is also given with details of treatment. There is nothing to discuss about your personal thoughts here. Sathishmls (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not a good source. And what you have added is undue weight. Not everything gets added to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
"prepared by the Chief Doctors and Directors of India" is what is called an argument from authority. It should not and will not convince anyone. This antiquated nonsense may still be used by "practitioners" of Ayurveda, but we need substantial secondary MEDRS sources before we'll treat it seriously. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this party(just got interested from reading the DRN case filing), but I don't see how this source can possibly meet MEDRS. Besides the concerns with methodology that have already been raised in this thread, in the clinical trials it describes, the patients are never confirmed to have Chikungunya at all, they are simply screened based on symptoms and the source describes them as "probable cases of Chikungunya". Surely to know if a treatment works for an ailment, the patients you are treating must actually have that ailment? And perhaps this is due to a language barrier, but it appears that the clinical criteria they were using to diagnose Chikungunya were inconsistent and varied based on locale, not to mention very vague as well. Jonathanfu (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

suggestion - source for inclusion - "Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences (RJPBCS)" a Page 9 and 10 have information on different forms of medication used. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
this looks like a decent source, though I have no idea how to distinguish a good peer-reviewed journal from a bad one. It is only 3 years old. Either way, while I think this could certainly be used to flesh out any missing bits in the article, I don't see a whole lot of relevance to this particular discussion - the section on Ayurveda simply says three things:
(1) that Ayurvedic treatments are being used on Chikungunya patients.
(2) that Ayurvedic medicine has treatments for joint pain and since arthralgias are a symptom of Chikungunya, these treatments may improve the joint pains
(3) there are reports of fake herbal medicines that contain steroids; so it would be best to avoid such and follow conventional treatment by resting.
There is no mention of how well patients actually responded to Ayurvedic treatment. I would agree with the comment below in that the best chance for a mention of Ayurvedic treatment would be as the compromise proposed by Jmh649. Jonathanfu (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sathishmls the compromise suggested by Doc James on 18/Jan sounds fair to me. Move it to the "society and culture" section. When the findings of our Indian doctors are accepted by their peers as an option, it can move to the "Treatment section. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The pdf document is a peer reviewed and it is done by the Review Board consists of the Indian Council of Medical Research (The Apex body in India for the Formulation, Coordination and Promotion of Biomedical Research), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (The Authority for setting of standards for drugs, pharmaceuticals and healthcare devices and technologies in India]] and National Institute of Virology (Designated as WHO H5 reference Laboratory for SE Asia region)

Please check WhatamIdoing summary at dispute page, which confirms that the content is well suited for the Treatment section. Sathishmls (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We still need a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Jmh649 Here is a source from the US National Library, which further validates the the edits by User talk:Sathishmls - there are reports of the successful use of Ayurveda for chikungunya epidemic (identified as Sandhi jwara) in Gujarat and Kerala. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen a journal with an impact factor of zero before [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not tough to explain. This shows self-citation within a walled garden. This should of course be reflected in the impact factor.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:MEDRS regarding referencing requirements for medical content on the English Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Jmh649 Very clearly this disease does not have any known cure. Even the western medicine that you favour are treating it using medicines for arthritis. The traditional medicines that Sathishmls cites are also working in the same way. The edits made by Sathishmls should be allowed and not censored. Especially since Sathishmls has written in a very clear manner without any undue bias towards the traditional Indian medicine. Your attempts at trying to blockSathishmls does not seem right. Request you to review your stance and allow the edits to be included. Prodigyhk (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe try a RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


This sentence seems broken. Does anyone know what it should say?

Long-term symptoms are not completely a recent observation with long-term arthritis observed following an outbreak in 1979.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to

Long-term symptoms are not an entirely new observation; long-term arthritis was observed following an outbreak in 1979.

I think that's what was meant, can;t access the cited article Cannolis (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I now see that the original did actually make sense but yours is clearer to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


I see we also have an article on Chikungunya outbreaks. I put a link to that article into this one as a "See also" because previously it did not seemed to be linked in this one. I am not an expert on how to work on disease articles, but I added info on reports from another two Caribbean islands to the other article. I see there is some info on Caribbean outbreaks in the Epidemiology section here so I added to that also, but is that a mistake? Should the second article be linked as a hat note in an "Outbreaks" subsection of the Epidemiology section so that more info of that nature is not added to this article? What do you think Doc James? (Also as someone previously suggested, can we have a note on how to pronounce the name?) Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Map of distribution in the US[edit]

can be found here. Not sure if it can be uploaded though. Ian Furst (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We have had a few cases in Massachusetts. It's those who catch it down south and come up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7700:3A3:7DF6:E28F:E993:D19B (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External Links and Further Reading[edit]

Hello. I expanded the External Links section a bit today. But I've just learned that it's best to exclude ELs which "[can] be integrated into the Wikipedia article" as it says in #3 of ELYES. Two of those links (NPR and Reuters) might meet that criteria. I'd like to try to incorporate information from those sources into the article and make those links citations instead. Meanwhile, I've moved those links to Further Reading for now. Hope that's ok, and hope it helps. :) Msannakoval (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)